Whilst I thought Connor might have been enjoying the Christmas spirit prior to the chat (he certainly seemed surprised it was even taking place) – to the critics above – if you don’t like it, don’t play. And to then moan about it afterwards is just weird.
Awwww… did someone not get their question answered? Perhaps you are not as insightful and intelligent as you are in your own mind. Why not boycott his chats?
The offseason is about halfway over and the Dodgers seem to be the favorite suitor for Lindor, maybe Clevinger or Betts as well. Perhaps we should wait a tad longer to see how all the trade drama plays out before condemning Andrew Friedman at Christmas time or while he is still lighting his menorah.
They acquired Yu Darvish in 2017 and Manny Machado in 2018. They also traded Frankie Montas and Jharel Cotton away to get Rich Hill and Josh Reddick in 2016, and Jose De Leon for Logan Forsythe.
What the Dodgers haven’t done is trade away the likes of Walker Buehler, Cody Bellinger, Julio Urias, Corey Seager, and Alex Verdugo in the process. The moves haven’t produced a World Series title, but it’s not for lack of trying. What they haven’t done is pay too high of a price, and so Los Angeles still has a young core going forward to continue to be in a position to try and win a title.
again, this cubs ridiculing is crazy. they were one of three teams to exceed a tax that any team could exceed while still making plenty in profits. why are they cheap, and where is the proof they actually are entertaining the idea of trading Bryant simply to save money? Better yet: why are we not ridiculing the Indians for actually making such trades while not having been in the top 3 in spending last year?
sorry, cant feel sympathy for billionaires who decide they want to maximize their profit over putting the best team on the field. like, make 60 million this year, not 160, cmon youre not even losing money and you already have a billion – they’re being so unreasonable and maximum greedy – greed is a sin, remember, christians?
Show us the figures where billionaire owners are making $160m a year.
First off, most MLB owners are far from billionaires.
Next, it just came out that players salaries (including their agents commissions) and benefits account for almost 93% of revenue that MLB receives. The other 7% goes into “Administrative Costs”……
MLB computerizing every playing field in MLB and the minors as well as hiring people to maintain and administer them (including constant hardware and software updates). Salaries for GM’s, FO employees. Managers, Coaches. Subsidizing Farm Systems. Signing minor league prospects. The expenses to send personnel to scout players all over the world 12 months a year. Marketing the team. Paying investors dividends each year (if not, investors instead can put their money is businesses not just in America, but all around the world). And on and on and on.
The Mets lost $60m each of the last 2 years. Most small market teams are fortunate to break even.
All teams are making $160m a year? LOL Tell it to the Pirates, Indians, Reds, Tigers, A’s, Rays, Jays, Mariners, Rangers, Orioles, Mets, Cardinals, DBacks, Padres, Rockies, and I’m leaving another 6-8 out that are obvious.
Um…no. None of your figures are anywhere near accurate. Forbes did show that salaries are equal to about 50% of revenues, which (a) is in line with other pro sports and (b) based on what teams report as revenue, where gigantic lying goes on. And BTW agent commissions are paid by the player (client), not the team.
Yes, you’re right, not EVERY owner is making 160M; that would be impossible in Tampa, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, etc. But some (in NY, Boston, LA, Chicago) are making far above that figure. And every time an owner claims he’s losing money, 20 senators call him to threaten to do away with their anti-trust exemption.
I’m going on figures published here within the last few days.
I wrote that the owners are paying the agents salary, and they are. No different then buying/selling a piece of property. The buyer pays both to his/her agent, and to the sellers agent. That’s what happens when the money changes hands. It’s all a part of the negotiated transaction.
I don’t doubt that some teams in major markets are doing well. But I heard the Cardinals owner state in recent interview that “it’s hard to make money in this business”. Dewitt comes from a family going back 3 generations of running MLB teams. The Cardinals owners are hardly billionaires, and they’re one of the higher revenue teams.
About 10 years ago I saw an interview with Dan Gilbert of the Cleveland Cavaliers of the NBA. He came out and said that owning a sports team is special, an ego thing. But when he looked at the figures he said there is no way he would buy and run a business at those margins were he simply buying a business (and he bought the Cavs after dropping out in bidding for the Brewers after he got some financial figures, saying he couldn’t see a way that an MLB team can turn a profit in the smaller markets). As an aside – the year the Cavs won the NBA championship, in which they sold out every game, they actually lost between $1-2 million. Where Gilbert made his money was on his Quicken Loans business – where he got so much pub that sales there went through the roof. Point being that unless one is an owner in NY, Boston or a few other markets, owners need a tie in that they can exploit to gain sales in other industries. Arte has the biggest Spanish speaking TV network in America, which is what keeps him in the bucks. Mariners have Japanese investors that use their interest in the team to make connections and sell their products. Cubs are in trouble because they tried to exploit their Cubs connection by building up the area around Wrigley, and are overrun by a rumored billion dollars with no end in sight. Dodgers and Braves are owned by major corporations, with investors that expect dividends each year.
Going back to the your initial point of players salaries being around 50% of revenues – that is where I’m confused. The article by a business magazine quoted here only a few day ago differs by such a large percentage that it’s just not worth arguing. I will say this – as you know, the Indians are one of the teams I follow. Their primary owner made some money in Cleveland Cable TV in the 80’s when it was a government granted monopoly. He has a law firm in Cleveland, and it’s not a fraction as big as Jones Day. The cable blitz ended 20 years ago. When he bought the Indians he had to take a personal loan from a relative that owns the NY Knicks. Heaven knows if the franchise is still in hock to the guy. He was underfunded then and I’d suspect is underfunded now. Yes, the value of the team went up. But who does he sell to? MLB teams are now valued at well over $1 billion. The Marlins sold for $1.2 billion 2 years ago. They got the new park. They can’t draw, and the local TV market is limited. They traded off their high-salaried players and took the garbage they were offered as everyone in MLB knew that they’d have to dump those contracts at a loss as they’d be hand-tied for years before they could even think of getting above water. About 4 years ago a minority investor from KC that MLB sent over to learn the business bought into the Indians. A few months ago he bought the Royals for $1 billion. He can’t afford to throw any money in the team at this point; and the Indians owe the guy for his Indians stock. Interesting that no one has researched the specifics and reported on them. Point here is that the teams may be with $1 billion, but most MLB franchises are such bad investments at that price that they’ll have trouble finding buyers if they were put on the market. Team rich / cash poor if you will.
Sooner rather then later the golden goose will be killed.
Again, I’m going off an article from Forbes, dated 12/22/19, that gave the following numbers:
MLB Gross Revenues: 10.7 billion
MLB Net Revenues: 9.7 billion
Player Salaries (including benefits) : 4.7 billion
If you quickly compute payroll info from Cot’s (which everybody seems to use), that 4.7 billion looks rather close, adding up the payroll responsibility of each individual team.
No one thinks that 5 billion profit gets parceled out equally to each team; the big boys (NY, Boston, Chi) get the lion’s share. That’s not unfair, really; it cost a whole lot more to buy the Red Sox than it does the Rays. Investors are entitled to their return on investment.
The formula that Andrew Zimmerman, an economist from Amherst College whose testified before Congress, works best here. Let’s take the Rays, using round numbers:
Revenues (before Revenue Sharing): 240M
Operating costs (Front Office, scouting, development, stadium obligations, travel and lodging, etc.) : 100 M (likely grossly exaggerated, given technology)
Sub-Total: 140 M
Bonuses to Draft Choices/International Signs: 20 M (if they’re HIGHLY aggressive, which, to be fair, they have been)
Benefits to Players: 20M
That leaves 100 M available for payroll. And again to be fair, that’s REAL payroll, factoring in the 40-man. So the Rays payroll last year was closer to 90M than the 60M that often gets mis-reported.
In general, the Rays (and teams like them) profit comes from the spread between that 100M and what their real payroll is. AND Revenue Sharing, estimated (for teams like them) to be about 50M.
The disparity comes from one major factor; it costs about the same (base operating costs) to run the Red Sox than it does the Rays. Actually, it costs less, since the Sox own their venue, and a lot of the ancillary (concessions, parking, etc.) profit centers surrounding the team. And the Red Sox have 3 times the revenue. So they have twice the payroll; so what? If you want to sell more hamburgers, you’re going to need more burger boys. They can afford it. And while the Sox have to pay INTO Revenue Sharing, they have all kinds of methods (owning their broadcast outlet, e.g.) to wash a lot of that.
That analysis , agreeably, leaves out things like debt service, etc. But it’s hard to imagine that there’s any debt at all in the AL East, because of profits made or, as in the case of the Yanks and O’s, inheritance factors.
You’re 100% right about the golden goose being dead. Franchise valuations growth, about 300 % over the past 15 years, is a thing of the past, even with the Nike and MGM deals. And long-term broadcast contracts have already been signed. A slow-down in profits is coming. It won’t affect payroll over the next 2 years; owners are too worried about the CBA expiring. But that’s coming too.
in reality its all relative. any of the teams in the league can spend more, (well, maybe the Wilpons have an excuse not to) yet only 3 exceed the luxury tax. to be angry at one of the top 3 spenders above all others for not spending more is ridiculous. its not about siding with anyone, its about putting all 30 teams on the same plane.
I think the point Darkside was making is being ignored by responders and I think it’s a good one. Cubs fans are ripping into Wrickets for being cheap but 28 other teams have invested back into the team less than the Cubs owner has. The Indians owner really does deserve much more of the criticism the Cubs have been getting. Just when they should be spending more to support their playoff worthy team, they have been instead trading away critical parts.
Darksides point is a concern for fans which is worth bringing up alongside just how much we should care as owners and players fight over the money that the fans put into the coffers of baseball.
one also has to consider how Chicago’s FA contracts have gone in recent years. why would the owners want to spend even more when the likely result is another Yu, Morrow, or Heyward? meanwhile the Indians have had a clear path to the playoffs for years and yet conrinue to squander their chanses by cutting costs at a crazy rate. i mean, their headliner for a guy who recently won 2 Cys was cash savings? really?
I don’t understand the attraction, appeal, or obsession for getting somebody’s question(s) answered in these “chats”.
None of these writers are experts in any way, shape, or form, nor do they have any special insight into anything baseball related aside from being randomly selected to write for MLBTR.
None of them have worked in a front office, so you don’t even get that benefit like you would with Keith Law, annoying as he is.
Is it the back-and-forth interaction? Because you can get that with 20 random commenters in any thread, so ask THEM what it would take the Angels to get Boyd from the Tigers instead or worrying about a glorified chat moderator answering it and getting upset if he didn’t choose your question.
I have not attempted to decide for others…I simply made my own observations which I stand by. I made the assumption that the moderators here were inside journalist. That was a bad assumption.
Someone asked a question in the chat about why AJ Preller is called a Rockstar GM. Since Connor was largely unable to answer it, I’ll digress here:
In his first year as GM, Preller acquired Matt Kemp in the Winter of 2014 from the Dodgers in a move that sent Yasmani Grandal to their division rival. Other less significant pieces were involved as well. In a news conference that introduced him, Kemp referred to Preller as a “GM rockstar.” He re-vamped the SD outfield by also acquiring Justin Upton from the Braves and Will Myers from the Rays.
He also signed James Shields to a 4yr, $75 Million deal.
However, he did SOMEHOW acquire Fernando Tatis Jr. for Shields, in an inexplicable move by the Sox GM.
Since Preller took over as GM, the Padres haven’t finished higher than 3rd place in the NL West, have never had a winning record, with their highest winning percentage of .475
In 2016, he was also suspended for a month because he did not disclose injuries related to a player he traded.
Hmm, I’ll pass on this one. Thanks though.
Yet, you stuck around for comment after comment.
GO outside. Hug a family member or friend. Get a life.
Yeah same. Connor Byrne is by far the worst writer they have
With an attitude!
Sorry to hear that. Happy holidays!
Hating Lucy cause she’s a girl is sexist!
She’s kinda mean to Chuck!
Merry CHRISTmas!
Whilst I thought Connor might have been enjoying the Christmas spirit prior to the chat (he certainly seemed surprised it was even taking place) – to the critics above – if you don’t like it, don’t play. And to then moan about it afterwards is just weird.
That’s funny. Truth be told, I just wasn’t planning on chatting last night, but I changed my mind right at 7 ET. Hence, the surprise.
Thanks Connor. Kind regards & have a wonderful Christmas.
Thanks! You too.
Conner.. Marte for Kris Bryant.. who wins the deal ?
(In theory)
Awwww… did someone not get their question answered? Perhaps you are not as insightful and intelligent as you are in your own mind. Why not boycott his chats?
AaronNachos
6:11 Why do people refer to A. J. Preller as a rockstar GM?
Connor Byrne
6:12 Well, there are a lot of talentless rock bands/stars.
hahahahahaha
Lt. Sergant
6:59 What do you think of Rich Hill’s arrest?
Connor Byrne
6:59 His only real crime is liking the Patriots
best host out, lol!!!
Every year I hear Dodgers are trading their best prospects, (this year they are desperate to win a World Championship) and it never happens.
The offseason is about halfway over and the Dodgers seem to be the favorite suitor for Lindor, maybe Clevinger or Betts as well. Perhaps we should wait a tad longer to see how all the trade drama plays out before condemning Andrew Friedman at Christmas time or while he is still lighting his menorah.
They acquired Yu Darvish in 2017 and Manny Machado in 2018. They also traded Frankie Montas and Jharel Cotton away to get Rich Hill and Josh Reddick in 2016, and Jose De Leon for Logan Forsythe.
What the Dodgers haven’t done is trade away the likes of Walker Buehler, Cody Bellinger, Julio Urias, Corey Seager, and Alex Verdugo in the process. The moves haven’t produced a World Series title, but it’s not for lack of trying. What they haven’t done is pay too high of a price, and so Los Angeles still has a young core going forward to continue to be in a position to try and win a title.
again, this cubs ridiculing is crazy. they were one of three teams to exceed a tax that any team could exceed while still making plenty in profits. why are they cheap, and where is the proof they actually are entertaining the idea of trading Bryant simply to save money? Better yet: why are we not ridiculing the Indians for actually making such trades while not having been in the top 3 in spending last year?
sorry, cant feel sympathy for billionaires who decide they want to maximize their profit over putting the best team on the field. like, make 60 million this year, not 160, cmon youre not even losing money and you already have a billion – they’re being so unreasonable and maximum greedy – greed is a sin, remember, christians?
SO is envy
LOL
Show us the figures where billionaire owners are making $160m a year.
First off, most MLB owners are far from billionaires.
Next, it just came out that players salaries (including their agents commissions) and benefits account for almost 93% of revenue that MLB receives. The other 7% goes into “Administrative Costs”……
MLB computerizing every playing field in MLB and the minors as well as hiring people to maintain and administer them (including constant hardware and software updates). Salaries for GM’s, FO employees. Managers, Coaches. Subsidizing Farm Systems. Signing minor league prospects. The expenses to send personnel to scout players all over the world 12 months a year. Marketing the team. Paying investors dividends each year (if not, investors instead can put their money is businesses not just in America, but all around the world). And on and on and on.
The Mets lost $60m each of the last 2 years. Most small market teams are fortunate to break even.
All teams are making $160m a year? LOL Tell it to the Pirates, Indians, Reds, Tigers, A’s, Rays, Jays, Mariners, Rangers, Orioles, Mets, Cardinals, DBacks, Padres, Rockies, and I’m leaving another 6-8 out that are obvious.
$160m a year profit. LOL
Um…no. None of your figures are anywhere near accurate. Forbes did show that salaries are equal to about 50% of revenues, which (a) is in line with other pro sports and (b) based on what teams report as revenue, where gigantic lying goes on. And BTW agent commissions are paid by the player (client), not the team.
Yes, you’re right, not EVERY owner is making 160M; that would be impossible in Tampa, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, etc. But some (in NY, Boston, LA, Chicago) are making far above that figure. And every time an owner claims he’s losing money, 20 senators call him to threaten to do away with their anti-trust exemption.
I’m going on figures published here within the last few days.
I wrote that the owners are paying the agents salary, and they are. No different then buying/selling a piece of property. The buyer pays both to his/her agent, and to the sellers agent. That’s what happens when the money changes hands. It’s all a part of the negotiated transaction.
I don’t doubt that some teams in major markets are doing well. But I heard the Cardinals owner state in recent interview that “it’s hard to make money in this business”. Dewitt comes from a family going back 3 generations of running MLB teams. The Cardinals owners are hardly billionaires, and they’re one of the higher revenue teams.
About 10 years ago I saw an interview with Dan Gilbert of the Cleveland Cavaliers of the NBA. He came out and said that owning a sports team is special, an ego thing. But when he looked at the figures he said there is no way he would buy and run a business at those margins were he simply buying a business (and he bought the Cavs after dropping out in bidding for the Brewers after he got some financial figures, saying he couldn’t see a way that an MLB team can turn a profit in the smaller markets). As an aside – the year the Cavs won the NBA championship, in which they sold out every game, they actually lost between $1-2 million. Where Gilbert made his money was on his Quicken Loans business – where he got so much pub that sales there went through the roof. Point being that unless one is an owner in NY, Boston or a few other markets, owners need a tie in that they can exploit to gain sales in other industries. Arte has the biggest Spanish speaking TV network in America, which is what keeps him in the bucks. Mariners have Japanese investors that use their interest in the team to make connections and sell their products. Cubs are in trouble because they tried to exploit their Cubs connection by building up the area around Wrigley, and are overrun by a rumored billion dollars with no end in sight. Dodgers and Braves are owned by major corporations, with investors that expect dividends each year.
Going back to the your initial point of players salaries being around 50% of revenues – that is where I’m confused. The article by a business magazine quoted here only a few day ago differs by such a large percentage that it’s just not worth arguing. I will say this – as you know, the Indians are one of the teams I follow. Their primary owner made some money in Cleveland Cable TV in the 80’s when it was a government granted monopoly. He has a law firm in Cleveland, and it’s not a fraction as big as Jones Day. The cable blitz ended 20 years ago. When he bought the Indians he had to take a personal loan from a relative that owns the NY Knicks. Heaven knows if the franchise is still in hock to the guy. He was underfunded then and I’d suspect is underfunded now. Yes, the value of the team went up. But who does he sell to? MLB teams are now valued at well over $1 billion. The Marlins sold for $1.2 billion 2 years ago. They got the new park. They can’t draw, and the local TV market is limited. They traded off their high-salaried players and took the garbage they were offered as everyone in MLB knew that they’d have to dump those contracts at a loss as they’d be hand-tied for years before they could even think of getting above water. About 4 years ago a minority investor from KC that MLB sent over to learn the business bought into the Indians. A few months ago he bought the Royals for $1 billion. He can’t afford to throw any money in the team at this point; and the Indians owe the guy for his Indians stock. Interesting that no one has researched the specifics and reported on them. Point here is that the teams may be with $1 billion, but most MLB franchises are such bad investments at that price that they’ll have trouble finding buyers if they were put on the market. Team rich / cash poor if you will.
Sooner rather then later the golden goose will be killed.
OMG, it does end!
Again, I’m going off an article from Forbes, dated 12/22/19, that gave the following numbers:
MLB Gross Revenues: 10.7 billion
MLB Net Revenues: 9.7 billion
Player Salaries (including benefits) : 4.7 billion
If you quickly compute payroll info from Cot’s (which everybody seems to use), that 4.7 billion looks rather close, adding up the payroll responsibility of each individual team.
No one thinks that 5 billion profit gets parceled out equally to each team; the big boys (NY, Boston, Chi) get the lion’s share. That’s not unfair, really; it cost a whole lot more to buy the Red Sox than it does the Rays. Investors are entitled to their return on investment.
The formula that Andrew Zimmerman, an economist from Amherst College whose testified before Congress, works best here. Let’s take the Rays, using round numbers:
Revenues (before Revenue Sharing): 240M
Operating costs (Front Office, scouting, development, stadium obligations, travel and lodging, etc.) : 100 M (likely grossly exaggerated, given technology)
Sub-Total: 140 M
Bonuses to Draft Choices/International Signs: 20 M (if they’re HIGHLY aggressive, which, to be fair, they have been)
Benefits to Players: 20M
That leaves 100 M available for payroll. And again to be fair, that’s REAL payroll, factoring in the 40-man. So the Rays payroll last year was closer to 90M than the 60M that often gets mis-reported.
In general, the Rays (and teams like them) profit comes from the spread between that 100M and what their real payroll is. AND Revenue Sharing, estimated (for teams like them) to be about 50M.
The disparity comes from one major factor; it costs about the same (base operating costs) to run the Red Sox than it does the Rays. Actually, it costs less, since the Sox own their venue, and a lot of the ancillary (concessions, parking, etc.) profit centers surrounding the team. And the Red Sox have 3 times the revenue. So they have twice the payroll; so what? If you want to sell more hamburgers, you’re going to need more burger boys. They can afford it. And while the Sox have to pay INTO Revenue Sharing, they have all kinds of methods (owning their broadcast outlet, e.g.) to wash a lot of that.
That analysis , agreeably, leaves out things like debt service, etc. But it’s hard to imagine that there’s any debt at all in the AL East, because of profits made or, as in the case of the Yanks and O’s, inheritance factors.
You’re 100% right about the golden goose being dead. Franchise valuations growth, about 300 % over the past 15 years, is a thing of the past, even with the Nike and MGM deals. And long-term broadcast contracts have already been signed. A slow-down in profits is coming. It won’t affect payroll over the next 2 years; owners are too worried about the CBA expiring. But that’s coming too.
in reality its all relative. any of the teams in the league can spend more, (well, maybe the Wilpons have an excuse not to) yet only 3 exceed the luxury tax. to be angry at one of the top 3 spenders above all others for not spending more is ridiculous. its not about siding with anyone, its about putting all 30 teams on the same plane.
*plain
I think the point Darkside was making is being ignored by responders and I think it’s a good one. Cubs fans are ripping into Wrickets for being cheap but 28 other teams have invested back into the team less than the Cubs owner has. The Indians owner really does deserve much more of the criticism the Cubs have been getting. Just when they should be spending more to support their playoff worthy team, they have been instead trading away critical parts.
Darksides point is a concern for fans which is worth bringing up alongside just how much we should care as owners and players fight over the money that the fans put into the coffers of baseball.
Also the Christian comment was simply not needed.
I don’t like the Indians owner. But has it occurred to you that he’s tapped out? And he’s hardly the only one.
one also has to consider how Chicago’s FA contracts have gone in recent years. why would the owners want to spend even more when the likely result is another Yu, Morrow, or Heyward? meanwhile the Indians have had a clear path to the playoffs for years and yet conrinue to squander their chanses by cutting costs at a crazy rate. i mean, their headliner for a guy who recently won 2 Cys was cash savings? really?
This chat is utterly useless. He doesn’t respond with legitimate answers to legitimate questions.
I don’t understand the attraction, appeal, or obsession for getting somebody’s question(s) answered in these “chats”.
None of these writers are experts in any way, shape, or form, nor do they have any special insight into anything baseball related aside from being randomly selected to write for MLBTR.
None of them have worked in a front office, so you don’t even get that benefit like you would with Keith Law, annoying as he is.
Is it the back-and-forth interaction? Because you can get that with 20 random commenters in any thread, so ask THEM what it would take the Angels to get Boyd from the Tigers instead or worrying about a glorified chat moderator answering it and getting upset if he didn’t choose your question.
Why does anyone talk sports with their dumbass friends who can barely run their own lives, let alone baseball team?
“Randomly selected” lol
I’m sorry that your application was rejected, Wilford, but you don’t need to be so salty
He didn’t have his bowl of Quaker Oats today
Feel free to start your own chat. There, you can decide for yourself, not others, what a legitimate question, as well as well as an answer, is.
I have not attempted to decide for others…I simply made my own observations which I stand by. I made the assumption that the moderators here were inside journalist. That was a bad assumption.
Someone asked a question in the chat about why AJ Preller is called a Rockstar GM. Since Connor was largely unable to answer it, I’ll digress here:
In his first year as GM, Preller acquired Matt Kemp in the Winter of 2014 from the Dodgers in a move that sent Yasmani Grandal to their division rival. Other less significant pieces were involved as well. In a news conference that introduced him, Kemp referred to Preller as a “GM rockstar.” He re-vamped the SD outfield by also acquiring Justin Upton from the Braves and Will Myers from the Rays.
He also signed James Shields to a 4yr, $75 Million deal.
However, he did SOMEHOW acquire Fernando Tatis Jr. for Shields, in an inexplicable move by the Sox GM.
Since Preller took over as GM, the Padres haven’t finished higher than 3rd place in the NL West, have never had a winning record, with their highest winning percentage of .475
In 2016, he was also suspended for a month because he did not disclose injuries related to a player he traded.
Rockstar, sho’ nuff.
Set the team back years
Another totally lame Q&A.
Don’t f’kin’ read it then. Just bashing Conor cause others are. Jeff Todd is a lot worse. Smh
It’s bizarre how upset people get over this chat. Baseball people are really fun.
Dangit!! I set down the phone for a couple hours to argue with my wife and set up my Festivus pole and I miss chat with my favorite host!
If you don’t like the host, your welcome to just get lost.